Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!UDEL.EDU!Mills
From: Mills@UDEL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  [Phil Dykstra: more interesting numbers]
Message-ID: <8804141303.aa05226@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 14 Apr 88 17:03:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

Phil, et al,

From Mike Minnich's data presented at a recent IAB meting and other
sources such as the LSI-11 reports issued by BBN, I suspect Phil's
numbers are total aggregate and include ICMP and routing overheads.
As you point out, between 40 and 60 percent of all mailbridge traffic
is overhead, while the NSFNET backbone overhead is much lower. While
the NSFNET backbone fuzzballs do use the 11/73, they are memory
limited, not CPU limited. I would be surprised if this were not the
case for the mailbridges, at least those using the 11/73. As reported
in the SIGCOM 87 paper and in another submitted to SIGCOM 88, I would
like to believe the difference in drop rates is due to the design of
the NSFNET backfuzz selective-preemption and source-quench schemes.

Dave